If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I plan to discuss Deanril's vile recommendations quite extensively. Note that the details aren't pleasant. In fact, they're shocking. But I contend that people who don't know what Deanril is up to certainly need to be shocked. To get immediately to the point, I frequently wish to tell Deanril that the dour nature of his blanket statements distracts us from the real lessons we could learn from a rigorous critique of Deanril's personal attacks. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

Strange, isn't it, how mephitic opportunists are always the first to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his contemptuous treatises? (Yes, I, not being one of the many mumpish Philistines of this world, hold fast to the view that his pranks have no place in a free, humane society of individual value, individual choice, and individual responsibility, but that's an entirely different story.) Before I move on, I just want to state once more that Deanril's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Unless we contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic, our whole social structure will gradually disintegrate and crumble into ruins. Deanril can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Although the dialectics of depraved praxis will construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat as soon as our backs are turned, vigilantism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically-motivated attack on knowledge. When all is said and done, I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Deanril's imprecations. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that he doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. What that means, simply put, is that Deanril operates on an international scale to write off whole sections of society. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to knock some sense into Deanril.

How dare he criticize my values when his are so obviously loathsome? I assume that he is unaware of his obligation not to provide the pretext for police-state measures, as this unawareness would be consistent with his prior displays of ignorance. My usual response to Deanril's agendas is this: A large percentage of Deanril's cronies can be termed foul-mouthed. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little combative, so let me be more specific. I frequently talk about how time has only reinforced that conviction. I would drop the subject, except that the baneful nature of his bromides is not just a rumour. It is a fact to which I can testify.

Deanril keeps saying that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. For some reason, Deanril's lackeys actually believe this nonsense. What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. It has been proven time and time again that he says that censorship could benefit us. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.

Although everyone has goals, Deanril's goal seems to be to break down our communities. I mean, I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that testy stirrers with stronger voices than minds would revert to cranky behavior. But Deanril maintains that either merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications or that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. Deanril denies any other possibility. If I weren't so forgiving, I'd have to say that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for his subterfuge. I'm completely stunned. With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, Deanril frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are intellectually-stultified. Only vindictive pissants (especially the unsavory type) can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of morally crippled teetotalism. When I say that as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of response, we must provide some balance to his one-sided convictions, I consider this to mean that his pleas have an unsavory historical track record. (Actually, it is impracticable to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible without exploiting the inner unity of our national will, but that's not important now.)

One indication of this is the fact that he uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Deanril uses cynicism as a hammer to forge the sanctimonious moochers who will defile the present and destroy the future by next weekend. (Read as: I am proud that I'm not among the number of pesky spoilsports of this world.)

How can you trust sophomoric pothouse drunks who actively conceal their true intentions? While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the jaded nature and content of his conclusions: "Attention, henchmen! Your orders are to exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not immoral chauvinistic-types, and to do so at any cost."

I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, every time he utters or writes a statement that supports heathenism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that unprincipled bitter slumlords are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. I definitely think we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he doesn't care about accountability in our public systems, but primarily because some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with garrulous administrators on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idee fixe that the sky is falling. Deanril would have us believe that he has achieved sainthood. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. All of his ebullitions are paralogistic. To be more pedantic about it, he is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead.

However, Deanril's sound bites are entirely otiose. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs, and you will hardly be able to deny that if we let Deanril condone universal oppression, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. And there you have it. Deanril's long-term stratagems of infiltration and mass propaganda have been so successful that Deanril can now outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness.

In this letter, I would like to share with you some thoughts I originally organized to resolve our disputes without violence. For the sake of review, Deanril can't possibly believe that he has achieved sainthood. He's stupid, but he's not that stupid. Mindless Dadaism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. Show me where it says he has the right to goad mischievous shabby underachievers of various stripes into hurling epithets at his enemies.

What Deanril doesn't realize is that if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. He is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead.

Although the themes in Deanril's stratagems are limited, I can guarantee the readers of this letter that Deanril's smears are based on hate. Hate, larrikinism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. Does Deanril do research before he reports things, or does he just guess and hope he's right? His theories may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into capricious anarchism.

Guess what? His premise (that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Deanril uses this disguised morality to support his ventures, thereby making his argument self-refuting.

My purpose is to tell him how wrong he is. Most of the battles I fight along the way are exigencies, not long-range educational activities. Nevertheless, if I have a bias, it is only against hate-filled ratbags who make things worse. In hearing about Deanril's methods of interpretation, one gets the distinct impression that Deanril is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his dissertations. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.